Talk:Anonymous remailer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Unclear humor 2 Removed content 3 Removed links 4 Is "Type IV" really used? 5 broken links. 6 Remailer Vulnerabilities

[edit] Unclear humor

Matt, The Fredonia reference was deliberately constructed for humorous purposes. Both Fredonia and Firefly are from a Marx brothers movie.

Your objection was to... The humour? An editorial comment on the quality of the humour? What? --ww 19:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More that it would likely confuse as many as it would amuse; I didn't understand the reference, and a quick look revealed that it was likely that quite a few other readers wouldn't either (from a 1933 movie?). I thought about trying to refactor the example without the cultural reference, but then it occurred to me that it was a fairly straightforward and obvious point that might not need an accompanying anecodate anyway. --— Matt 19:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removed content

I removed this text:

A Mixmaster remailer allows receivers to answer messages. To receive an answer to your message, you have to create encrypted reply blocks. A reply block contains instructions to reach your real address.

The text although true, is misleading because Cypherpunk remailers also offer reply via reply blocks. That is how nym servers work.

[edit] Removed links

Why would the links to free remailers need to be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zanaq (talk • contribs) .

Because Wikipedia is not a link directory. We link to places that can give further topical insights, and not to mere services. Haakon 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. Zanaq 12:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is "Type IV" really used?

Can anybody source the claim that pseudonymous remailers are called "Type IV?" Google has no hits for "Type IV remailer", "type 4 remailer", or "type four remailer" (all with quotes). As near as I can tell, if anybody uses the term, it doesn't have general acceptance. Am I wrong? --Victor Lighthill 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Victor I believe you are correct. I do not know of a type IV remailers. I changed the designation to type IV because it was previously described as Type III and I knew Mixminion was type III. I left the designation in because I thought someone may have known something I didn't. I think the pseudonymous remailers should be moved to a different designation outside of the Type X list. --User:rearden9

[edit] broken links.

I would not like to remove those broken links completely, because most of the documents had been published in many versions all around the world and we should rather try to update those references to potato software and other information.--84.56.86.27 08:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remailer Vulnerabilities

Hi. Aren't the results of RProcess' analysis worth mentioning with a few phrases, in addition to offering the link? My English might, though, not suffice to do it properly, myself. TY.--84.56.81.23 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)